I think its also worth pointing out the irony when we juxtaposition this showdown over how democrats were rallying just weeks ago
The judge is trying to order the executive branch to usurp the power of the purse from congress and arbitrarily requisition billions of dollars of funding without an appropriation bill. Effectively saying that the president has the power to distribute federal funding in any way he seems fit, or not at all. You know, like a king. Didn't take long to break out the crown he was just gifted by lee jae myung. So we're less than 3 weeks since the No Kings protests and democrats are demanding Trump take the throne. Separation of powers? Not for
my pet expenditures, not for the program that feeds all the black and brown folks.
I'm not sure how we're supposed to credible entertain democrats when they denounce Trump's creative attempts to find funding revenue available for projects like the border wall through ambiguous authorizations, when here's an attempt to redirect explicitly allocated and unavailable funds, source be damned.
Hell I used the treat or treating metaphor, the DoJ went with 'couch cushions':
Quote
Congress has failed to appropriate funds to pay for Supplemental
Nutritional Assistance Program (“SNAP”) benefits for this fiscal year.
Even after exhausting the entirety of the SNAP contingency reserve—a step
that the Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) took earlier this week in
response to a temporary restraining order issued by the district court—
there is only enough money to pay partial November SNAP benefits. This
is a crisis, to be sure, but it is a crisis occasioned by congressional failure,
and that can only be solved by congressional action.
Instead, a single district judge has devised his own solution: ordering
USDA to cover the SNAP shortfall by transferring billions of dollars that
were appropriated for different, equally critical food-security programs—
and to do so within just one business day (i.e., by today). This
unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers.
Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend.
Courts are charged with enforcing the law, but the law is explicit that
SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations. Indeed, governing
regulations contemplate that, in the event of a shortfall in funding, USDA
will direct the States to reduce their benefit allotments—which is precisely
what USDA did this week.
The district court insisted that USDA find some way to fund SNAP,
as a mandatory entitlement. But the statute specifically provides that SNAP
payments shall not exceed the funds appropriated for the program. There
is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4
billion in the metaphorical couch cushions.
The district court focused specifically on Section 32 of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act Amendment of 1935, which appropriates
revenue for various programs, see 7 U.S.C. § 612c et seq., and ultimately
ordered USDA to divert billions from Child Nutrition Programs that fund,
among other things, school meals for millions of children. See id. § 612c6(b)(1).
But it cannot possibly be arbitrary and capricious for USDA to
decline to raid school-lunch money to instead fund SNAP benefits—to
starve Peter to feed Paul, as it were. Indeed, if every beneficiary of a
mandatory spending program could run to court and force the agency to
transfer funds from elsewhere, the result would be an unworkable and
conflicting plethora of injunctions that reduce the federal fisc to a giant
shell game. And it is no answer to assume, as the district court did, that
Congress will replenish the borrowed-from programs down the road. That
is pure speculation and, under the Appropriations Clause, agencies cannot
spend money based on wishful thinking. The district court also accused the
President of bad faith for declaring that full SNAP benefits would not
resume until the government reopens. But that was just stating a fact—the
appropriation has lapsed, and it is up to Congress to solve this crisis.
Unfortunately, the district court’s short-sighted injunction has thrust the
Judiciary into the ongoing shutdown negotiations and may well have the
effect of extending the lapse in appropriations, exacerbating the problem
that the court was misguidedly trying to mitigate.
For these reasons, the government is likely to succeed in overturning
this order on appeal, and the equities and public interest cut strongly in
favor of a stay to avoid forcing USDA to permanently impair the Child
Nutrition Programs to the tune of $4 billion. And given the timeline
imposed by the district court, this Court should grant an immediate
administrative stay while it considers this motion.1 The government
1 Defendants sought a stay pending appeal and administrative stay
from the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 8,
which the court denied on November 6. See Minute Entry (Nov. 6, 2025).
requests either a stay or an administrative stay by no later than 4 PM
today
Bolded the juicy parts of their filing